Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material

[Steppingfeet]

A WANDERER’S HANDBOOK GLOSSARY

Service to others: the path of radiation and openhearted giving. The positive polarity where the seeker attempts to see and serve the Creator in all. The intention to serve others in at least 51% of one’s efforts will qualify the seeker for graduation into fourth density light. The path of that which is: unity.

Service to self: the path of magnetism and control. The negative polarity where the seeker attempts to cause others to serve the Creator in the self. The intention to control others to serve the self must be present in at least 95% of the seeker’s efforts for graduation into the fourth density in the negative sense. The path of that which is not: separation.

In my understanding, the key difference to both polarities is how they relate to free will, and whether the the green-ray heart chakra is consciously blocked or consciously opened.

These dynamics are interwoven into the very fabric of our everyday lives here on planet Earth. They play themselves out in nearly every aspect of this moment, and our incarnational sojourn through third density.

Here is my take. Please contribute!


Service to others:

---

Seeks to respect the free will of all others and intends to reduce all possible infringement on the free will of others.

The STO-polarity sees the Creator in each face, and seeks to preserve the right of each entity to walk a path of their own choosing.

The positively polarizing entity radiates and shares and shines Love, Light, and Power freely with all beings without expectation of return. The positive entity has a heart chakra that, in the more advanced beings, is fully open and activated. The service-to-other entity’s heart is vibrating with unconditional love in the embrace of all that is, the shadow included and especially.

This polarity seeks honest and clear and truthful representation of all things, and sees the self as a humble servant to all, enjoying the sunlight and the natural beauty of creation as it recognizes the Creator in *ALL* possible aspects and manifestations of the Creator.

This polarity seeks to pierce and, ultimately, dismantle the veil of forgetting in order to again perceive and know and experience all things as one.


Service to self :

---

Seeks to infringe upon the free will of others. The Creator is seen only in the self, others deemed inferior to the self.

The STS-polarity does not feel that each other self has the right to walk a path of their own choosing. On the contrary the STS-entity seeks control not only of the self, but of all other selves.

The negatively polarizing entity desires increase of its own power and light at the expense of others. The negative entity takes, and, in the more advanced negatively polarized entities, will spare no effort to control, manipulate, dominate, subjugate, and enslave other selves.

This polarity seeks to disguise and conceal intention and information.

The service-to-self polarity will reliably misrepresent its identity and intentions in order to manipulate and control other selves.

This polarity is predicated on the veil of separation and seeks to intensify that separation and draw on the dark power made available by separation.

- - - - - - - - -



And there is a great wealth of information contained in Book IV that examines and clarifies what polarity is and how it evolved as a consequence of the veil of forgetting. No analysis of polarity can exempt the veil.

A few key Ra excerpts on polarity :


15.12
Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst.


93.3
Questioner: Thank you. You have stated previously that the foundation of our present illusion is the concept of polarity. I would like to ask, since we have defined the two polarities as service-to-others and service-to-self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these polarities or any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?

Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service-to-others and service-to-self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

19.16
Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is the free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

[Shin'Ar]

Now here is the perfect example of what I have been trying to underline.

for the most part I agree with your defintions of the two gary.

However I would like to ask anyone following this to go back and read it again with this in mind:

The questioner asked the question like this: "I would like to ask, since "WE" have defined the two polarities as service-to-others and service-to-self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these "polarities"..."

Ra responded with this : "It is unlikely that there is a more ... eloquent description of the 'polarities of third density'; (not saying polarities of STS/STO).....However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms....One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive"

I would like to suggest that Ra did NOT respond by saying that STS and STO were polarities, but in acknowledgment that the questioner should look at them in another manner.

Polarity is the natural division caused by the coming into Being of the One. All polarity is a result of that manifestation.

STS and STO are choices one makes as a fragment of the One. These are not polarities.

This thinking of them being natural polarities is what causes problems when we get to the next verse where Ra speaks of the picnic and personal tastes. Those who misinterpret Ra's explanation of STS/STO as being the natural manifestation of polarity also see it as nothing more than enjoying all of nature's offerings.

And this leads to some who may be looking for excuses to partake, to do so with just cause.

Can you see how this can be extremely misleading and dangerous to the soul of the All?

as you said in your final sentence Gary, "All these experiences are available. It is the free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure." How you say that suggests that STs can be a form of pleasure. We know by your deifnitions above that is NOT what you mean, and that you mean that some taste it as pleasure and others do not. But the way it is said and interpreted becomes the avenue that many will use to attempt the dangerous.

I think that the candor that Ra uses in trying to be diplomatic, causes their teachings to be easily corrupted. Much discernment is advised in learning from Ra, whereas Hatonn is much less diplomatic.

[godwide_void]

So the polarities are the two opposing forces on the opposite ends of the spectrum (light and dark), and the deeming of STS/STO refers to one's given orientation based on the sum total of the nature and manner of one's choices as to whether they will act in such and such way governed by this set of qualities. People whose polarity is positive is typically oriented in STO, yet can also be prone to performing acts which would be STS, and vice versa. One's professed polarity is merely an indicator that the choices one makes will more often than not fall into a predetermined set consisting of attributes most exemplative of that orientation, but the polarity itself is not a barring factor. Generally, individuals have the propensity to act in either manner, but those who consciously seek specific polarization will be more predisposed to reflect their polarity of choice in their actions and rather than fluctuating between circumstances where differing approaches are taken courses of action rooted in one particular mode of thinking will occur.

[Bring4th_Austin]

This thinking of them being natural polarities is what causes problems when we get to the next verse where Ra speaks of the picnic and personal tastes. Those who misinterpret Ra's explanation of STS/STO as being the natural manifestation of polarity also see it as nothing more than enjoying all of nature's offerings.

I think I understand what the hang-up on semantics is here, but if you could clarify.

You are worried that one might view Ra's "picnic" metaphor, some enjoying light and some enjoying dark, as manifestations of polarity, as if the polarity already existed?

How I view the metaphor is like this:
Don wanted to know what exactly it was which created the bias which would cause one, from an unpolarized platform, to polarize using STO or STS. The answer indicates that, through whatever mechanisms of freewill (and NOT inherent polarity), some enjoy the dark...and thus, from that point, they seek the polarity of darkness.

Is this congruent with your understanding?

[Shin'Ar]

So the polarities are the two opposing forces on the opposite ends of the spectrum (light and dark), and the deeming of STS/STO refers to one's given orientation based on the sum total of the nature and manner of one's choices as to whether they will act in such and such way governed by this set of qualities. People whose polarity is positive is typically oriented in STO, yet can also be prone to performing acts which would be STS, and vice versa. One's professed polarity is merely an indicator that the choices one makes will more often than not fall into a predetermined set consisting of attributes most exemplative of that orientation, but the polarity itself is not a barring factor. Generally, individuals have the propensity to act in either manner, but those who consciously seek specific polarization will be more predisposed to reflect their polarity of choice in their actions and rather than fluctuating between circumstances where differing approaches are taken courses of action rooted in one particular mode of thinking will occur.

Thank you thank you thank you!!! for making the translation.

Damn I wish I could speak like that.

yes, positive and negative are polarities, and those are the points requiring balance. the choices simply determine the direction in which we evolve. One can only go forward or backward. Toward the Light or back into darkness.

In service to othgers one moves forward into the Light. In service to self one commits further to the long continued act of gratifying the temporary self over at the expense of the eternal consciousness.

Choice is not polarity, it is direction.

---

This thinking of them being natural polarities is what causes problems when we get to the next verse where Ra speaks of the picnic and personal tastes. Those who misinterpret Ra's explanation of STS/STO as being the natural manifestation of polarity also see it as nothing more than enjoying all of nature's offerings.

I think I understand what the hang-up on semantics is here, but if you could clarify.

You are worried that one might view Ra's "picnic" metaphor, some enjoying light and some enjoying dark, as manifestations of polarity, as if the polarity already existed?

How I view the metaphor is like this:
Don wanted to know what exactly it was which created the bias which would cause one, from an unpolarized platform, to polarize using STO or STS. The answer indicates that, through whatever mechanisms of freewill (and NOT inherent polarity), some enjoy the dark...and thus, from that point, they seek the polarity of darkness.

Is this congruent with your understanding?

I am not sure why Don wopuld ask the question like that without going to those quoptes and seeing them in their entire context. In my mind, unpolarized platform would be a thing in perfect balance, so I do not understand the dynamics of that question.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I am not sure why Don wopuld ask the question like that without going to those quoptes and seeing them in their entire context. In my mind, unpolarized platform would be a thing in perfect balance, so I do not understand the dynamics of that question.

I guess unpolarized platform isn't a good term then. In any case, I'm really quite unsure of what you feel is being misunderstood.

What godwide_void wrote, in my mind, reflects how most of the community feels about choice and polarity, yet you seem to think there is a vast misunderstanding. How do you think the community views choice and polarity?

Choice is not polarity, it is direction.

You define Service to Others as a choice which directs us towards the positive polarity (light), and Service to Self a choice which directs us towards the negative polarity (dark)...

positive and negative are polarities, and those are the points requiring balance. the choices simply determine the direction in which we evolve.

In service to othgers one moves forward into the Light. In service to self one commits further to the long continued act of gratifying the temporary self over at the expense of the eternal consciousness.

If it is choice that polarizes us (or moves us towards one polarity or the other), what is the danger in defining the positive polarity as a "Service to Others polarity" and the negative polarity as a "Service to Self polarity?" That's what I am misunderstanding.

[godwide_void]

So the polarities are the two opposing forces on the opposite ends of the spectrum (light and dark), and the deeming of STS/STO refers to one's given orientation based on the sum total of the nature and manner of one's choices as to whether they will act in such and such way governed by this set of qualities. People whose polarity is positive is typically oriented in STO, yet can also be prone to performing acts which would be STS, and vice versa. One's professed polarity is merely an indicator that the choices one makes will more often than not fall into a predetermined set consisting of attributes most exemplative of that orientation, but the polarity itself is not a barring factor. Generally, individuals have the propensity to act in either manner, but those who consciously seek specific polarization will be more predisposed to reflect their polarity of choice in their actions and rather than fluctuating between circumstances where differing approaches are taken courses of action rooted in one particular mode of thinking will occur.

Thank you thank you thank you!!! for making the translation.

Damn I wish I could speak like that.

yes, positive and negative are polarities, and those are the points requiring balance. the choices simply determine the direction in which we evolve. One can only go forward or backward. Toward the Light or back into darkness.

In service to othgers one moves forward into the Light. In service to self one commits further to the long continued act of gratifying the temporary self over at the expense of the eternal consciousness.

Choice is not polarity, it is direction.

Ultimately one's polarity is determined by the choices, so it is safe to assume that polarity is NEVER a set thing for an individual. Polarity is sustained by the continuing nature of every subsequent choice. I bolded your last sentence because it was a very profound and perceptive word choice to deem it as "direction". No being begins life as polarized one way or another. Nobody has a native polarity, but at the same time the capacity to become either polarity exists in all. Visualizing this as a simple meter really helps, or if you've any experience with RPG video games it makes it easier.

Creator 1 is involved in a situation. If Creator 1 takes Action A there is a +5 to Light and a -5 to Dark because it was an STO action. If Action B is taken there is a -5 to Light and a +5 to Dark because it was an STS action. Creator 1 usually makes choices which normally contain the following qualities of kindness, compassion, understanding, servitude, love, etc. Choices of this nature are considered to be STO. Choices which are considered STO in both deed and intention equate to a person's meter leaning towards the polarity of light. It can be assumed them, that because Creator 1 typically performs STO actions that he will continue to polarize towards the light. Because he continues to polarize only towards the light, it inferred that he is of a light polarity. HOWEVER, just because he frequently polarizes towards the light does not solidify and guarantee that his polarity will remain as such. He is not exempt from the existence of the other polarity. At any given moment Creator 1 may act in an unloving manner and not in service to others. His polarity would not change from this, but he may possibly de-polarize, and the more depolarizing choices made, the more Creator 1 veers off course and the direction he moved in will alter. If the orientation of his choices changes, the direction he heads in changes. I will reiterate that polarity is not a set thing, and it is a constant thing to maintain. Adhering to one particular set of choices gives the illusion that one's polarity is locked in place because heading farther down either path, the progress becomes reflected in one's beingness and nature of experiences; those of the light will continue to consciously seek the light, those of the dark wish to delve deeper into it. Nobody remains in the same place. By the time a person ends their day their polarity level will not be the same as it was when they awoke. There was either progress, stagnancy, or regression. If you acted kindly in all encounters in your day (were STO) you gained Light experience points. If you decided you'd explore the douchebag archetype today, then you began entering into dark polarized territory.

[Shin'Ar]

I am not sure why Don wopuld ask the question like that without going to those quoptes and seeing them in their entire context. In my mind, unpolarized platform would be a thing in perfect balance, so I do not understand the dynamics of that question.

I guess unpolarized platform isn't a good term then. In any case, I'm really quite unsure of what you feel is being misunderstood.

What godwide_void wrote, in my mind, reflects how most of the community feels about choice and polarity, yet you seem to think there is a vast misunderstanding. How do you think the community views choice and polarity?

Choice is not polarity, it is direction.

You define Service to Others as a choice which directs us towards the positive polarity (light), and Service to Self a choice which directs us towards the negative polarity (dark)...

positive and negative are polarities, and those are the points requiring balance. the choices simply determine the direction in which we evolve.

In service to othgers one moves forward into the Light. In service to self one commits further to the long continued act of gratifying the temporary self over at the expense of the eternal consciousness.

If it is choice that polarizes us (or moves us towards one polarity or the other), what is the danger in defining the positive polarity as a "Service to Others polarity" and the negative polarity as a "Service to Self polarity?" That's what I am misunderstanding.

One can choose to leap off of a cliff to experience the fall. But if one was lead to believe by their innacurate reading of the beware of cliff sign, that there was no danger, than that very real danger should be addressed and the sign made more concise. "Beware that falling off this cliff can be detrimental your continued health!"

The leaping, or not, off of the cliff is not polarity.

You are mistaken when you say I am saying the whole community is having the same interpretation. I am saying that I observe some applying varying degrees of this misniterpreation. And that is only my opinion of course as there is no sense in me preaching what I believe. I am only stating an observation and not wanting to point directly at anyone now.

---

Creator 1 usually makes choices which normally contain the following qualities of kindness, compassion, understanding, servitude, love, etc. Choices of this nature are considered to be STO. Choices which are considered STO in both deed and intention equate to a person's meter leaning towards the polarity of light. It can be assumed them, that because Creator 1 typically performs STO actions that he will continue to polarize towards the light. Because he continues to polarize only towards the light, it inferred that he is of a light polarity. HOWEVER, just because he frequently polarizes towards the light does not solidify and guarantee that his polarity will remain as such. He is not exempt from the existence of the other polarity. At any given moment Creator 1 may act in an unloving manner and not in service to others. His polarity would not change from this, but he may possibly de-polarize, and the more depolarizing choices made, the more Creator 1 veers off course and the direction he moved in will alter. If the orientation of his choices changes, the direction he heads in changes. I will reiterate that polarity is not a set thing, and it is a constant thing to maintain.

Yes, this is the peefect description and meaning behind the tarot card Vl, often called the two paths.

[Bring4th_Austin]

If it is choice that polarizes us (or moves us towards one polarity or the other), what is the danger in defining the positive polarity as a "Service to Others polarity" and the negative polarity as a "Service to Self polarity?" That's what I am misunderstanding.

One can choose to leap off of a cliff to experience the fall. But if one was lead to believe by their innacurate reading of the beware of cliff sign, that there was no danger, than that very real danger should be addressed and the sign made more concise. "Beware that falling off this cliff can be detrimental your continued health!"

Does this relate to defining the polarities as Service to Others or Service to Self? Or is it a response to my last question, "What is the danger?" Either way, I'm unsure of how it fits. Do you feel that defining the negative polarity as "service to self" somehow hides what that polarity entails?

The leaping, or not, off of the cliff is not polarity.

I feel like I understand your point. In the metaphor, the polarity would be being safe and sound on top of the cliff, or falling and ultimately landing on the ground. The polarity was the result of the choice to leap or not.

But can't you describe the paths as "the leaping path" or "the not leaping path?"

You are mistaken when you say I am saying the whole community is having the same interpretation. I am saying that I observe some applying varying degrees of this misniterpreation. And that is only my opinion of course as there is no sense in me preaching what I believe. I am only stating an observation and not wanting to point directly at anyone now.

Of course. I didn't mean to say you thought the community was misguided, but I understand that you feel there is some danger in misinterpretation of the concepts. I don't recall really seeing the Choice being represented as being incongruent with the way it was described but godwide_void.

So I understand that an inaccurate reading of a "Beware of Cliff" sign may lead to harm, and how that translates to you feeling like there is danger in misinterpretation of polarity being defined as STO or STS...but I do not understand where you perceive the danger in those definitions.

Could you more specifically explain, perhaps literally instead of through metaphor, how defining the negative polarity as "Service to Self polarity" is dangerous to an individual?

[Shin'Ar]

Because negative and positive polarity can be experienced by the choices of either.

And there have been suggestions made that because we are all One, than there is no such a thing as danger. and that because we can experience both and still remain more directed toward STO, that it should be okay to experience the negative path based upon how much you like the taste of it.

[Patrick]

...Much discernment is advised in learning from Ra, whereas Hatonn is much less diplomatic.

Much discernment is needed with ALL information whatever the source. We should not forget that Truth is subjective while incarnated in 3rd density. That said, IMHO the Ra material is the least distorted source of information currently available to the public on Earth.

[drifting pages]

Of course it is ok to experience darkness, everything is ok. That is the ONE.
All are supported by ONE.

The ONE/infinity contains all.... so there is no saving anything from something that will always be.

Make your choice and be who you want to be.

And if the one you want to be is the savior/helper to the right path or whatever you define your life to be then you are supported in creating that reality with like minded beings.

Paradox is normal within infinity.

Consciousness,which is empty yet is full of all is (my) the key.

[Patrick]

I think it would be helpful to have some quotes of what it was like BEFORE we became complexes. How it was when spirit/mind/body where not complex. Now we are spirit/mind/body complexes and before the veil there was only spirit/mind/body without even the possibility of the concept of "evil" (STS).

This would be very helpful in understanding that STS is based on illusion and only available within the illusion.

[Shin'Ar]

Of course it is ok to experience darkness, everything is ok. That is the ONE.
All are supported by ONE.

The ONE/infinity contains all.... so there is no saving anything from something that will always be.

Make your choice and be who you want to be.

And if the one you want to be is the savior/helper to the right path or whatever you define your life to be then you are supported in creating that reality with like minded beings.

Paradox is normal within infinity.

Consciousness,which is empty yet is full of all is (my) the key.

So you are saying that there is no free will, nor consequences for our choices, because everything is One?

[Patrick]

Of course it is ok to experience darkness, everything is ok. That is the ONE.
All are supported by ONE.

The ONE/infinity contains all.... so there is no saving anything from something that will always be.

Make your choice and be who you want to be.

And if the one you want to be is the savior/helper to the right path or whatever you define your life to be then you are supported in creating that reality with like minded beings.

Paradox is normal within infinity.

Consciousness,which is empty yet is full of all is (my) the key.

So you are saying that there is no free will, nor consequences for our choices, because everything is One?

I think what is being said is that ALL paradoxes finds their solution in Oneness. It's simply not possible to truly see the meaning of this while we are within our current illusion of separation.

[Shin'Ar]

I think what is being said is that ALL paradoxes finds their solution in Oneness. It's simply not possible to truly see the meaning of this while we are within our current illusion of separation.

Paradoxes do not have solutions, which is why they are called paradoxes.

And I would suggest that finding meaning and understanding is the goal we seek from within this current state of delusion, so that we can evolve from deluded to enlightened and aware.

[Patrick]

I think what is being said is that ALL paradoxes finds their solution in Oneness. It's simply not possible to truly see the meaning of this while we are within our current illusion of separation.

Paradoxes do not have solutions, which is why they are called paradoxes.

From my perspective, I can only see that they do have solutions. Only thing is, from my current perspective, I cannot seem to fully realize what these solutions are. But I see that they do have solutions and finds this comforting.

And I would suggest that finding meaning and understanding is the goal we seek from within this current state of delusion, so that we can evolve from deluded to enlightened and aware.

I agree with you.

[Ankh]

I think what is being said is that ALL paradoxes finds their solution in Oneness. It's simply not possible to truly see the meaning of this while we are within our current illusion of separation.

1.1 Questioner: Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us something of what your purpose is?

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

[Shin'Ar]

I think what is being said is that ALL paradoxes finds their solution in Oneness. It's simply not possible to truly see the meaning of this while we are within our current illusion of separation.

1.1 Questioner: Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us something of what your purpose is?

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

I am glad that you are pointing these quotes out Ankh, because I must say that I am NOT in agreement with them and they tend to answer many other concerns that I have had. Any entity that outright claims that they are not of love and Light should be taken very seriously as to what they just professed.

And with regard to polarity, it is my understanding that polarity is the nature of the universe. There will be no point in Higher Being where one becomes freed from polarity. Higher understanding will enable a greater skill in balancing polarity, but it will not alter the natural state of the universe.

Actually Ankh, I must ask you, are you editing these quotes as post them? Or are you acquiring them froma source that provides a different readout than the Law of One PDF where I get mine from the L/L Research site?

from the LL Reaserch site that quote is listed like this:

Questioner: Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us
something of what your purpose is?
Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We are those who are of the Law of
One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized; the complexities are
simplified; the paradoxes have a solution. We are one. That is our nature
and our purpose.
We are old upon your planet and have served with varying degrees of
success in transmitting the Law of One, of Unity, of Singleness to your
peoples. We have walked your planet. We have seen the faces of your
peoples. However, we now feel the great responsibility of staying in the
capacity of removing the distortions and powers that have been given to the
Law of One. We will continue in this, until, shall we say, your cycle is
appropriately ended. If not this one, then the next. We are not a part of
time and, thus, are able to be with you in any of your times.UNQUOTE

this is very much different than what you nposted as being a quote from that source. Where does it Ra say that they are not of those of love and Light in that quote?

And it is my interporetation that Ra is not saying that there is no polarity, what they is saying is that "in their vibration" they have managed to find harmony/balance. Good for them and that should be our goal as well.

[Ankh]

I am glad that you are pointing these quotes out Ankh, because I must say that I am NOT in agreement with them and they tend to answer many other concerns that I have had. Any entity that outright claims that they are not of love and Light should be taken very seriously as to what they just professed.

I am glad to be of service. It is ok to not agree with Ra. However, this community and forum is for studies of this particular material.

My interpretation of what Ra means by saying: "We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One." is that they are not here to offer ways of love lessons, or ways of wisdom lessons, but to offer both of these ways, the Law of One.

What is the Law of One? "You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One."

---

Actually Ankh, I must ask you, are you editing these quotes as post them? Or are you acquiring them froma source that provides a different readout than the Law of One PDF where I get mine from the L/L Research site?

Yes I know. You are getting them from the printed editions of the books. When I study and quote Ra on this site, I use Tobey's webpage: www.lawofone.info.

It's an awesome site, where you can search for specific information, plus there are quotes there that originally was edited from the books, but are left as they are on his page. Besides, there is also a link to re-listened project, which provides Q/A's as they are, unedited.

---

Where does it Ra say that they are not of those of love and Light in that quote?

Click on this link.

P.S. Ra says that they are not those of Love OR Light. (They are those of Love AND Light.)

[Shin'Ar]

Well, in light of the fact that Carla has already voiced that there are circumstances where these channelings are taken out of context and made to something that they should not, I would be very cautious about using various interpretations, and I would have to say that I would not agree with Ra's teaching according to the Tobey interpretations of it.

Is this not how the religious comunities ultimately end up with so much division and corruption? And is this not exactly the reason why Carla had to disassociate herslef with the Circle R group?

[Patrick]

If you want the least distorted source of the Ra material, you should read the re-listened version.

The wiki version is a straight, unedited version of the Ra sessions. It was produced by relistening to copies of the original tapes in order to capture Don’s questions and Ra’s answers through Carla as exactly as possible.

Here: http://wiki.lawofone.info/index.php/Ra_Session_1

Questioner: Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us something of what your purpose is?

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

We are old upon your planet and have served with varying degrees of success in transmitting the Law of One, of Unity, of Singleness to your peoples. We have walked your earth. We have seen the faces of your peoples. This is not so with many of the entities of the Confederation. We found it was not efficaceous. However, we then felt the great responsibility of staying in the capacity of removing the distortions and powers that had been given to the Law of One. We will continue in this until your, shall we say, cycle is appropriately ended. If not this one, then the next. We are not a part of time and, thus, are able to be with you in any of your times.

Does this give you enough information from which to extract our purpose, my brother?

[Ankh]

This is not Tobey's interpretations on that site. But additional information which was removed from the Books. Look at it like this:

1. Re-listened project, with all the "eehummm"s and "ohhh"'s in the questions for instance.

2. The lawofone.info site - the sessions are slightly edited, containing more Q/A's than the Books, but without "ehhuumm"s and "aaahh"'s.

3. Books are edited due various reasons mainly due to ease the reading.

[Patrick]

Well, in light of the fact that Carla has already voiced that there are circumstances where these channelings are taken out of context and made to something that they should not, I would be very cautious about using various interpretations, and I would have to say that I would not agree with Ra's teaching according to the Tobey interpretations of it.

Is this not how the religious comunities ultimately end up with so much division and corruption? And is this not exactly the reason why Carla had to disassociate herslef with the Circle R group?

Absolutely my friend! This is why IMHO it is very important to apply our own discernment to ALL information no mater the source.

Each of us creates our own Truth. This is the true meaning of the Creator experiencing itself.

Truth is subjective. If you do not resonate with parts of a teaching, you simply discard it, for it's not for your Self if you feel uncomfortable with it.

There is never a need to take all from any source. We should also not discard all because there are parts we do not resonate with. This is not always easy to do with some material.

That said, it so happens that I resonate with over 90% of the Ra material. I feel like I'm remembering, instead of learning, when I read it.

[Shin'Ar]

If you want the least distorted source of the Ra material, you should read the re-listened version.

The least distorted? Really? Now what does that tell us! And Ankh seems to like that.

[zenmaster]

Well, in light of the fact that Carla has already voiced that there are circumstances where these channelings are taken out of context and made to something that they should not, I would be very cautious about using various interpretations, and I would have to say that I would not agree with Ra's teaching according to the Tobey interpretations of it.

Is this not how the religious comunities ultimately end up with so much division and corruption? And is this not exactly the reason why Carla had to disassociate herslef with the Circle R group?

It seems that you are trying to come up with any excuse to make your 'warnings' have more relevance. You've already resorted to dishonesty or trickery and how can those actions not color our perceptions of your motivations? Something about your zeal seems almost anachronistic, as if the wisdom-level of the audience is willingly misplaced.

[Shin'Ar]

Each of us creates our own Truth. This is the true meaning of the Creator experiencing itself.

Well I will have to disagree with that wholeheartedly My friend.

There is only one truth, that which has taken place, the past.

We do not create our own versions of it. What happened in the past is only that which actually happened, and NOT what we think happened or believe might have happened.

---

It seems that you are trying to come up with any excuse to make your 'warnings' have more relevance.

Do you not think it wise to be wary of the dangers of misinterpretations?

[Patrick]

If you want the least distorted source of the Ra material, you should read the re-listened version.

The least distorted? Really? Now what does that tell us! And Ankh seems to like that.

It tells us that all Creation is distortion.

Without distortion, there is only One person.

My friend, you do not have to be comfortable with what we write or what we quote. Like I said before, you should take in only what you resonate with.

That said, I would note that IMHO a big part of the positive path is accepting that other selves have other Truths. And those who resonates with a large enough set of Truths will be able to form social memory complexes based on this set of Truths. Then you have other memory complexes based on other set of Truths.

[zenmaster]

It seems that you are trying to come up with any excuse to make your 'warnings' have more relevance.

Do you not think it wise to be wary of the dangers of misinterpretations?

I see it differently. Wisdom comes in due course, and when application of wisdom needs to be pointed out it's usually to compensate for some perceived lack of wisdom. I don't see that, but you do. Kinda like the guy whose only tool is a hammer and sees everything as nails.

[Shin'Ar]

We should also not discard all because there are parts we do not resonate with.

I agree with you there Valtor, but when a person says to me that they are not of light and love, I would not have reason to heed them any further, and I would most definitely use great discernment to anything else they had to say.

Just as when I realize that someone is quoting from a source that is not the actual source of the quote, but an edited and reinterpreted opinion of the actual quotes, I will now understand that what they are quoting may not be actual quotes.

---

If you want the least distorted source of the Ra material, you should read the re-listened version.

The least distorted? Really? Now what does that tell us! And Ankh seems to like that.

It tells us that all Creation is distortion.

Without distortion, there is only One person.

My friend, you do not have to be comfortable with what we write or what we quote. Like I said before, you should take in only what you resonate with.

That said, I would note that IMHO a big part of the positive path is accepting that other selves have other Truths. And those who resonates with a large enough set of Truths will be able to form social memory complexes based on this set of Truths. Then you have other memory complexes based on other set of Truths.

I am afraid that you are using the word distortion in two different meanings here Valtor. When Ra uses the word distortion they are speaking about how a thing vibrates. they are speaking about vibration. That is different than using the word to mean a corruption of truth or information.

---

It seems that you are trying to come up with any excuse to make your 'warnings' have more relevance.

Do you not think it wise to be wary of the dangers of misinterpretations?

I see it differently. Wisdom comes in due course, and when application of wisdom needs to be pointed out it's usually to compensate for some perceived lack of wisdom. I don't see that, but you do. Kinda like the guy whose only tool is a hammer and sees everything as nails.

And so you, even though you had a hammer at your disposal, would pound the nail in with your fist, just to avoid being seen as applying wisdom?